Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/warhammer_40000_iron_hands_en-1.pdf

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/warhammer_40000_raven_guard_en.pdf

The Internet rage is strong the IH one even mentions it!

DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print. We have waited
before releasing this errata to see whether the feedback
received bore out – it is quite evident that it has and,
as a result, we felt it was important to implement that
feedback as part of this errata rather than wait for the
next online balance change. This is not something
we do lightly, but given the nature of the feedback, is
something we feel is important.




Looks like big nerfs to the 'omfg broken' rage things like the iron stone, ferrrorors 5++ bubble etc

nerf to deny strat
nerf to double repair strat

cutting FAQ!

I have to laugh at anyone that ran out and purchased triple repulsers because of that supplement lol. They are still really strong in IH though, but this is much less auto pilot.

It is funny to me though, that folks were telling people not to worry about the Leviathan being broken, and after the errata it's the Leviathan that is still left standing lol.

He can still have his WLT, reduce damage, halve damage and he already has an invuln lol. The strats did go up though, I do find it very ironic though

The leviathan did get it, you can't get 6 wounds healed anymore nor d3 from a libby if being healed already.

ironstone has some wording changes. but yea is pretty much unchanged if used on a single leviathan

 Latro_ wrote:
The leviathan did get it, you can't get 6 wounds healed anymore nor d3 from a libby if being healed already.

ironstone has some wording changes. but yea is pretty much unchanged if used on a single leviathan

Fair enough, but he didn't need to heal 6-9 wounds anyway. He's still not worth shooting

So, the first IH FAQ was what ? A joke ?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/warhammer_40000_iron_hands_en.pdf

Old version that came from cache most likely

That 5++ invuln loss is a huge nerf. They had better not up Feirros cost in CA after this, as he’s now a questionable choice at best.

IMO in regards to the repair, ironstone, and invuln nerfs, they went overboard and completely ignored the actually OP part of Iron Hands: Devastator doctrine + calculated fury.

Too much knee jerk math hammer nerfing without actually seeing what’s causing the OPness in real games.

It seemed to appear and disappear a few times from wacom; I think GW management fought with swords and lances over this.

And I absolutely love this; they made new tanks sold out, and instantly did this. Bravo, GW!

Quasistellar wrote:
That 5++ invuln loss is a huge nerf. They had better not up Feirros cost in CA after this, as he’s now a questionable choice at best.

.

Out of curiosity what would you say necron overlord is then? As he's way worse.

 Latro_ wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/warhammer_40000_iron_hands_en-1.pdf

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/warhammer_40000_raven_guard_en.pdf

The Internet rage is strong the IH one even mentions it!

DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print. We have waited
before releasing this errata to see whether the feedback
received bore out – it is quite evident that it has and,
as a result, we felt it was important to implement that
feedback as part of this errata rather than wait for the
next online balance change. This is not something
we do lightly, but given the nature of the feedback, is
something we feel is important.

Spoiler:

e.g. we released the broken rules for the lols to sell a crap load of tanks in full knowledge we were gonna nerf bat it later

Looks like big nerfs to the 'omfg broken' rage things like the iron stone, ferrrorors 5++ bubble etc

nerf to deny strat
nerf to double repair strat

cutting FAQ!

Sympathy levels set to zero for anyone who rushed out and spent a load of money.

If something looks too good to be true it is too good to be true.

Quasistellar wrote:
That 5++ invuln loss is a huge nerf. They had better not up Feirros cost in CA after this, as he’s now a questionable choice at best.

IMO in regards to the repair, ironstone, and invuln nerfs, they went overboard and completely ignored the actually OP part of Iron Hands: Devastator doctrine + calculated fury.

Too much knee jerk math hammer nerfing without actually seeing what’s causing the OPness in real games.

The loss of 5++ and Ironstone only working on a single vehicle is an excellent nerf. IH keep their offensive power but now they will have to take into account the possibility of not having the first turn. If they don't have the first turn, a flier IH list can be shot down a lot more easily. Up until now, Ironstone and/or Feirros allowed such lists to be extremely resilient on top of having great firepower. Not anymore.

It seems like a strange nerf as getting blown off the table turn 1 is such a bad part of the game. I get that they are too killy to be that tough but I'd rather their killiness go down than their resiliency.

I guess it is harder to back out the things that make them better offensively than the things that made them good defensively but I think this is a lazy fix...

tneva82 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
That 5++ invuln loss is a huge nerf. They had better not up Feirros cost in CA after this, as he’s now a questionable choice at best.

.

Out of curiosity what would you say necron overlord is then? As he's way worse.

Honestly, I don’t play Necrons, and a unit’s value must be considered in the context of its army.

In other words I don’t know, lol.

Quasistellar wrote:
That 5++ invuln loss is a huge nerf. They had better not up Feirros cost in CA after this, as he’s now a questionable choice at best.

IMO in regards to the repair, ironstone, and invuln nerfs, they went overboard and completely ignored the actually OP part of Iron Hands: Devastator doctrine + calculated fury.

Too much knee jerk math hammer nerfing without actually seeing what’s causing the OPness in real games.

Devastator Doctrine is a marine level problem, honestly.

Seriously. What still makes me chuckle is the fact that a stalker boltrifle is somehow a free swap, but the auto bolt rifle is 2 ppm.

I am honestly more worried about imperial fists spamming those lol. Every marine is carrying a 1 shot dissintegrator canon verse tanks lol. Oh, and they explode on 6's lmao.

This is a step in the right direction, but I feel that IH are still incredibly strong in the competitive meta. Their damage output remains unchanged and their durability is still higher than any other marine chapter to date.

Quasistellar wrote:
That 5++ invuln loss is a huge nerf. They had better not up Feirros cost in CA after this, as he’s now a questionable choice at best.

IMO in regards to the repair, ironstone, and invuln nerfs, they went overboard and completely ignored the actually OP part of Iron Hands: Devastator doctrine + calculated fury.

Too much knee jerk math hammer nerfing without actually seeing what’s causing the OPness in real games.

Totally disagree. IH were busted because they had thos buffs AND were invincible. This is exactly where they should of hit and close enough to how they should have hit it.

Think about it, repulsor EX isn't gonna be doing much damage when you can pop 2 per turn because they don't have the 5++ invul and only one has ironstone. They're also not totally immune to chip damage now.

ERJAK wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
That 5++ invuln loss is a huge nerf. They had better not up Feirros cost in CA after this, as he’s now a questionable choice at best.

IMO in regards to the repair, ironstone, and invuln nerfs, they went overboard and completely ignored the actually OP part of Iron Hands: Devastator doctrine + calculated fury.

Too much knee jerk math hammer nerfing without actually seeing what’s causing the OPness in real games.

Totally disagree. IH were busted because they had thos buffs AND were invincible. This is exactly where they should of hit and close enough to how they should have hit it.

Think about it, repulsor EX isn't gonna be doing much damage when you can pop 2 per turn because they don't have the 5++ invul and only one has ironstone. They're also not totally immune to chip damage now.

Quasi plays IH.....his responses have all shown an enormous amount of bias.

Indeed I do. I also own a grand total of zero executioners, and many of my Dreads (deredeo + leviathan + contemptor relic) don't benefit at all in the first place from the (now defunct) invuln bubble, and are almost completely unaffected by the nerfs. In fact I have advocated in the past (on other forums) that Leviathans get targeted nerfs to ranged invuln and stormcannon # of shots to make them easier to balance.

I'm not saying they didn't need nerfs. They did. And honestly probably still might, which is what I'm afraid of.

It also makes me sad that the first and only unique Iron Hands character model ever got nerfed in a manner that's hard to undo after 2 weeks, when they could have definitely gone about the problems differently. If they were going to nerf Feirros they could have just given him a price bump, but making the vehicle invuln go away completely really stings when combined with the other nerfs to ironstone and other repair abilities.

I will survive, though. The vehicles didn't have invulns before, so meh.

the only nerf he got was his invul save bubble only applying to infantry, hardly a crippling nerf. he's still PLENTY useful

bananathug wrote:
It seems like a strange nerf as getting blown off the table turn 1 is such a bad part of the game. I get that they are too killy to be that tough but I'd rather their killiness go down than their resiliency.

I guess it is harder to back out the things that make them better offensively than the things that made them good defensively but I think this is a lazy fix...

Yeah but these nerfs suggested by the "playtesters" mean ITC won't be a complete gak show and goes back to being fortnite were every army is designed for maximum damage and to table the opposition as quickly as possible.

After this gak show I would not buy a codex or unit until I have seen which way the ITC guys are blowing the smoke up peoples arses including GW's.
.

SeanDrake wrote:

bananathug wrote:
It seems like a strange nerf as getting blown off the table turn 1 is such a bad part of the game. I get that they are too killy to be that tough but I'd rather their killiness go down than their resiliency.

I guess it is harder to back out the things that make them better offensively than the things that made them good defensively but I think this is a lazy fix...

Yeah but these nerfs suggested by the "playtesters" mean ITC won't be a complete gak show and goes back to being fortnite were every army is designed for maximum damage and to table the opposition as quickly as possible.

After this gak show I would not buy a codex or unit until I have seen which way the ITC guys are blowing the smoke up peoples arses including GW's.
.

It's absolutely amazing that they use the ITC guys... They are just a S**T show. They should take on board legit play testers who play both the ITC format and the general format of the game and are objective about it. Tabletop tactics guys come to mind.

GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

 Lord Damocles wrote:

GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

Rules got leaked/previewed and people gave feedback/whined.

What's the lie?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

"we got some feedback after we had gone to print" could just mean "the internet exploded in rage when they saw these rules" that said, having play tested for other companies before, yes it's perfectly normal for feedback to continue after going to print, sometimes you gotta publish due to deadlines etc. and sometimes these means conversations on changes etc are cut short etc.

I'm very happy that my list got out mostly unscathed. Taking a venerable dreadnought probably isnt worth it any more, they confirmed my leviathan warlord traits cheese, and i need to find a different spell to use then reforge.

Being able to heal up to 11 wounds a turn(9 if you were being reasonable) down to 4(3 if you actually want to not waste valuable resources) and losing those is kind of sad but eh.

Making souls of iron 2 CP makes me very sad.

Optimal repulson doctrine doesnt change too much for me as im saving CP from march of the ancients.

Ironstone nerfs actually doesnt do too much either. Though when making my list for this december i'll need to switch some things around.

Good to see GW acted that quickly. In 7th edition we would have had to live with that Codex in the hope that the next one will be just as overpowered to handle it (see Necrons and everything after that). Even though they're still rather slow in fixing/ improving weak units and Codizes, at least they're quick in reigning in overpowered stuff.

Of course if there was any serious playtesting they could have found this before it went to print. I mean, the players found this within days if not hours of the rules coming out.

Why didn't they?

That's a rhetorical question BTW. The answer is always the same: All the trees keep getting in the way of their view of the woods.

SeanDrake wrote:

bananathug wrote:
It seems like a strange nerf as getting blown off the table turn 1 is such a bad part of the game. I get that they are too killy to be that tough but I'd rather their killiness go down than their resiliency.

I guess it is harder to back out the things that make them better offensively than the things that made them good defensively but I think this is a lazy fix...

Yeah but these nerfs suggested by the "playtesters" mean ITC won't be a complete gak show and goes back to being fortnite were every army is designed for maximum damage and to table the opposition as quickly as possible.

After this gak show I would not buy a codex or unit until I have seen which way the ITC guys are blowing the smoke up peoples arses including GW's.
.

You mean every type of event? IH were dominating all types of events. They are plenty mobile so can score objectives. If you think IH were just sitting at positions...well think in error. When you can move and shoot without -1 to hit and have flyers which you know...have this thing called "speed"...you score objectives as needed as well.

Too hard for you to get at least bit back to same level with mere mortals that non-marines are?

I think what the designers commentary is referring to is probably some form of play tester feedback, rather than feedback off the back of leaks/previews.

The "after print" part implies that the rules were still being/had just started being play tested after they'd already sent the book off to the printers, but, rather than wait for the feedback before printing they seem to do things the other way around.

If it was play tester feedback, then i hope they start to take it on board more seriously going forward.